10 Commandments are SO offensive!

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by ScreamingEagle, Jun 30, 2005.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    "To put the Supreme Court's recent ban on the Ten Commandments display in perspective, here is a small sampling of other speech that has been funded in whole or in part by taxpayers:

    That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to subsidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!

    I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion — meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times.

    Now the Supreme Court is itching to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because of its offensive reference to one nation "under God." (Perhaps that "God" stuff could be replaced with a vulgar sexual reference.) But with the court looking like a geriatric ward these days, they don't want to alarm Americans right before a battle over the next Supreme Court nominee. Be alarmed. This is what it's about."

    http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    To put it in the perspective of reality, it is not banned from public view, merely from the courthouse. If you want to put up a Ten Commandments statue on the front lawn of your house, or on the front lawn of your church, knock yourself out. Frankly, I fail to get the maniacal compulsion to display religious symbols in government buildings except as a way to rub everyone's noses in your religion.



    I don't believe anyone has called the display offensive, just inappropriate. But why stop at decorating courthouses with Ten Commandment statues? Let's take down the blindfolded lady with the scales and put up a statue of The Blessed Mary...she's not offensive. And while we're at it, we can wallpaper the entire courthouse with the pages of the bible. There's no way someone could find that offensive. And just for giggles, we can hand out crosses to everyone who enters the courthouse too...nothing offensive about that. Exactly how much would it take to get you to quit whining?
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    MissileMan
    What would it take for you to stop whining?? Seriously you act as though if you see something religious on anything other than hidden from your view your head will explode.
    How far is the left going to take this crusade????

    The examples posted were very offensive to a lot of people yet all of those people are forced to fund it, please tell me if that's not a form of tierney then what is?? Why is it only religious items are looked down upon by many Liberals yet obvious attempts at being vulgar are applauded and funded??
    And if someone were to put up the ten commandments on their lawn how long do you think it would be before the ACLU dredges up some ass hole to go to court and say they find the monument offensive and the home owner winds up being sued to take it down???
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Secularism is everywhere that religion isn't and they whine because of one "religious" display that has existed in the US for over 200 years?-----you've got the issue around here don't you?
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Bonnie and Dillo. I am personally religious. To call Merlin a liberal is kind of nonsensical. He may be a secularist, which I am not, though I'm against the current trend on the Right to call any that don't fall in line with their terminology/calls for reform some sort of name.

    I call myself a libertarian, most would call me a neo-con. Yet here, I think I'm close to being considered a liberal. Why? Because I thought taking Shaivo to the federal level was wrong. I think that ID may be off base as far as science classes go, but am open to the arguements, which have to go further than "evolution has holes..."

    Merlin, while outspoken on the 'religion take' is far from a liberal. My concern is that the tone of this board may very well be the tone of the Republican mainstream. Guess what? If that is the case, the Left loses their Dean nuts and the Right loses in all liklihood a whole lot more.
     
  6. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Which Merlin are you referring to?? I don't recall referring to anyone specifically as a liberal, at least not tonight?? :confused:
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I was responding to missleman, not Merlin (unless there is some name situation that I am unaware of). Names and labels are necessary to speak of things and I'm personally not concerned if my personal opinion falls into some kind of unsavory category. Like anyone who reads my post is going to call the New York Times or anything.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Sorry, to both of you. Right you are, Missleman. Wrong name, right meaning. Bonnie didn't mean to say you called him a liberal, I was too generalizing. Trying to keep from posting more than once, since some for some weird reason, think I try to drive up my posts. :laugh:
     
  9. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    That's okay I figured you meant Missileman, anyway kind of silly to worry about number of posts when you have left us all in the dust anyway, even with your temporary exile........ :laugh: :poke:
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    :laugh: What can I say? I read a lot and like to share! Not too mention that I sometimes have my own opinions. Get the difference, Gabby and others? Share/opinion?
     

Share This Page